Yeah, I agree with the article, but also agree science hasn't been able to figure out all the various things reported. That's the joy in the research - always looking to for either the natural explanation or the lack thereof that makes trying to figure out a paranormal explanation all the more challenging.

Thanks for sharing, Jim!

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

Of course what is most interesting is that what is quoted only refutes the 'low hanging fruit'. It does nothing to address the psi research which demonstrates some abilities consistent with the claims. And it does not address the limitations in the Goldsmith's studies which are highly contrived in nature.

What this yet once again illustrates is that cynics masquerading as 'skeptics' will do anything, say anything, distort anything if the resulting generality enables them to claim a 'victory' without much concern for truth or the countless hours of diligent and careful research which they, in the main, cannot explain and possess little knowledge.

I find it also interesting that most of us who have been working in psi research at the laboratory level have been engaged likewise for 40+ years. We have some plausible working models and frameworks, what do the cynics have? Nothing.

Anomalous Phenomena is Unexplained not ImpossiblePsi is Subtle not AbsoluteAnything is possible, it's all a matter of Probability---------------------

Of course what is most interesting is that what is quoted only refutes the 'low hanging fruit'. It does nothing to address the psi research which demonstrates some abilities consistent with the claims. And it does not address the limitations in the Goldsmith's studies which are highly contrived in nature.

What this yet once again illustrates is that cynics masquerading as 'skeptics' will do anything, say anything, distort anything if the resulting generality enables them to claim a 'victory' without much concern for truth or the countless hours of diligent and careful research which they, in the main, cannot explain and possess little knowledge.

I find it also interesting that most of us who have been working in psi research at the laboratory level have been engaged likewise for 40+ years. We have some plausible working models and frameworks, what do the cynics have? Nothing.

Love to hear what these plausible theories are. BTW. Look up the word cynic just to make sure you aren't applying a new meaning to the word.

I haven't yet seen any research in the paranormal area that inevitably requires the assumption of a paranormal explanation, so I am not surprised by this article and tend to agree. However, I would like to point out that it is (literally, technically) impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Only positive claims can be validated in research. That's why the burden of proof always rests with those claiming there are paranormal forces at work.

I haven't yet seen any research in the paranormal area that inevitably requires the assumption of a paranormal explanation, so I am not surprised by this article and tend to agree. However, I would like to point out that it is (literally, technically) impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Only positive claims can be validated in research. That's why the burden of proof always rests with those claiming there are paranormal forces at work.

I've long accepted that many ghost encounters are just psychological. But there are many things beyond that convenient explanation. When multiple people experience the same ghost, you can't dismiss it as a result of some obscure psychological phenomenon.

Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 23 October 2010 - 09:12 AM

40 years of research proves ghosts don't exist.

Is it possible to prove that something doesn't exist? I thought that's why the burden of proof was on us (as it should be).

I originally posted this some time ago and was curious about the feedback it might generate. Of course I agree that it is always impossible to prove a negative, however the point here is that there are other explanations besides the old "Ghosts are spirits of dead people" theory. (Which by the way is also unproven!)

We as investigators must keep an open mind to ALL possibilities until such time as a definitive conclusion is reached. The reasons cited in the article may account for some, but definitely not ALL ghost reports. And even those not accounted for by mundane reasons cannot be grouped in as spirits of the dead. That is where a thorough examination of the evidence is crucial.

Well said, Jim. I mentioned this to a friend the other night - you have to keep an open mind. I also reminded them that it shouldn't be so open their brains fall out

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer